Opinion
237 CAF 20-00355
05-07-2021
In the MATTER OF DEANGELO B.-K. and Jamelle B.-K. Steuben County Department of Social Services, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Tia K., Respondent, and Greggory L., Respondent-Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
CAITLIN M. CONNELLY, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. DONALD S. THOMSON, BATH, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. MARY HOPE BENEDICT, BATH, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
CAITLIN M. CONNELLY, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
DONALD S. THOMSON, BATH, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
MARY HOPE BENEDICT, BATH, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent father appeals in appeal No. 1 from an order of Family Court denying that part of his motion seeking to vacate a prior order of fact-finding and disposition, entered upon his consent, determining, inter alia, that the father neglected two of his wife's children. In appeal No. 2, the father appeals from an order of the same court denying that part of his motion seeking to vacate a prior order of fact-finding and disposition, also entered upon his consent, determining, inter alia, that he neglected his two biological children. In each appeal, the father contends that the court erred in denying the motion inasmuch as he was not adequately warned of the potential consequences of his consent to the neglect findings as required by Family Court Act § 1051 (f). The father failed to assert that ground in support of his motion to vacate the prior orders, and the issue thus is not properly before us (see Matter of Nicole KK. , 46 A.D.3d 1267, 1268, 848 N.Y.S.2d 442 [3d Dept. 2007] ). We decline to reach that issue in the interest of justice. We have reviewed the father's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.